Members of a Visit Fargo Moorhead selection committee agreed to use a weighted scoring matrix to evaluate proposals and asked city staff to draft a request for proposals that would be presented to the Fargo City Commission for approval before issuance.

The matrix assigns 40% of total weight to the top section and 30% to each of the other two sections, with individual line items inside each section summing to 100%, Visit Fargo Moorhead committee member Mallory Ackerman said. "Each section had to have a 100% right?" Ackerman said while walking the group through the calculation method and the 1-to-5 scoring scale used to produce weighted totals.

Charlie Johnson of Visit Fargo Moorhead said the spreadsheet on screen shows the averages of committee members' inputs and that the document explains the formulas used to produce the weighted scores. "What you see on the screen are the averages based on your votes," Johnson said, describing the SurveyMonkey responses the committee used to produce the sample results.

City staff member Jim Gilmore said he has a draft RFP in progress and offered to circulate a draft to the committee ahead of the next meeting. "I could try to get this out by the next meeting so we could start to take a look at that," Gilmore said. He described a tentative schedule the committee discussed: a draft by May 30, final committee review by June 13, and presentation to the City Commission on June 23 for permission to issue the RFP. Gilmore described a proposed 8-week response window after issuance and a 30-day period for prospective proposers to submit questions.

Committee members debated how much budget detail to include in the RFP. Gilmore said it would help proposers if the RFP included an amount or range and offered examples such as "40,000,000 or 39,000,000." City of Fargo finance staff member Susan Thompson said she was not comfortable naming a single figure. "I'm not comfortable picking anything other than a range," Thompson said; the group discussed a working range of about 37 to 41 (amounts were discussed in millions during the meeting but the committee characterized these as a range rather than a single, fixed number).

The committee discussed how proposals will be handled publicly. Committee members said they expected the procurement system and submissions to be open records and that committee members' scores would be visible. "The proposals are all open. You're going to be able to see everything. Your scores are going to be open too," said Eric Johnson during the discussion about transparency and the city's bidding system.

On evaluation steps after proposals are received, the committee discussed individual scoring, identifying a natural break in scores, then shortlisting finalists for presentations and interviews. The group generally agreed on advancing no more than five finalists to a second phase, with committee members saying three to five finalists was the likely range. The committee discussed using a different or additional set of criteria for the finalist presentation round, including more detailed financial plans and drawings.

Committee members sketched a notional calendar for the remainder of the summer: issue the RFP after City Commission approval (June 23), receive questions during a 30-day Q&A window with a committee check-in about three weeks after posting, close proposals after an 8-week submission window, score proposals, then schedule finalist presentations about four weeks after the scoring round. Specific calendar dates referenced in the meeting included July 11 as a mid-process check, August 18 for initial scoring, and a possible Sept. 12 date for finalist presentations; Jim Gilmore emphasized these dates were part of a proposed schedule to be finalized with the draft RFP.

The committee directed staff to prepare the RFP language and a clear process document that sets out phase 1 requirements, what additional materials will be requested of finalists in phase 2, and how many finalists may be advanced. Commissioner Colby asked staff to bring a proposed process to the next committee meeting for review; Gilmore agreed to circulate a draft and coordinate with staff before distribution.

No formal motion or vote was recorded in the transcript. The meeting record shows consensus to proceed with drafting the RFP and returning with a proposed process and schedule for committee review and subsequent City Commission consideration.